[cisco-voip] Digit stripping on a Route-Group...

[Ted Nugent]

We’ve kicked around the idea of going straight H323
for all new deployments especially after the ISR first
came out and MGCP was puking more then it was actually
running. We actually went back during this time and
re-configured a couple irate customers to H323 because
of various bugs that were not getting resolved. I
don’t see the benefit of MGCP call survivability if
you ram into bug that prevents inbound/outbound calls
from complete period! With the last few releases we’ve
seen that most of the major MGCP bugs are starting to
clear up but for a LONG while we practically had an
open conference bridge with TAC just to deal with all
the bugs. I’m still more comfortable with h323 because
it just seems to WORK! And some features are not
“supported” on MGCP. ex CID on POTS (FXO) and frac PRI
(yes it works but still not officially supported).
Just my $0.02
Ted


--- Jonathan Charles <jonvoip at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, that was part of the question, is there
> anything to be gained by
> doing this, or should I just go with MGCP. I want
> alarms generated
> when/if a PRI goes down, and H.323 doesn't have that
> capability.
> 
> I forgot about the digit strip on the two
> route-groups from within the
> RL... thanks!
> 
> I am thinking I am just going to go with MGCP,
> however, I have seen
> MGCP go belly up, but the question is would it go
> belly-up enough for
> H.323 to go active.
> 
> On the outbound, it seems that if CCM could not
> reach the GW via MGCP,
> then it would hop over to the next RG and use
> H.323... inbound would
> still be down.
> 
> I am just looking for a reality check here, does any
> of this sound
> like a good idea or not. I am okay with going
> MGCP-only. I have just
> been burned by MGCP a lot in the past (where MGCP
> misses a keepalive
> and you need to no mgcp/mgcp to get it back....)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On 7/17/06, Ryan Ratliff <rratliff at cisco.com> wrote:
> > If you are doing H323 and MGCP on the same router
> on the same trunk
> > (s) then the only redundancy you get here is if
> the MGCP process goes
> > belly up.   Of all the problems I've seen this
> would be the least
> > likely to happen IMHO.
> >
> > Without any devices using this router for SRST I
> don't see the point
> > in configuring h323-fallback.
> >
> > -Ryan
> >
> > On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Charles
> wrote:
> >
> > So, I want to use MGCP as my primary gateway
> protocol and H.323 as a
> > backup (no SRST, no remote sites).
> >
> > The plan is to add the gateways to CCM as H.323
> AND MGCP and have two
> > route-groups, one for MGCP and one for H.323 and
> then combine them
> > into a route-list with MGCP first.
> >
> > The problem is that I want to strip the 9 for MGCP
> (on the route-group
> > or device) and not do so for H.323.
> >
> > First off, as a design is this retarded? Second,
> should I strip the 9
> > on the gateway or change the H.323 dial-peers to
> not include the 9 and
> > strip it on the route list?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> >
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com